Print
Altitudinal and seasonal distribution of butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico
expand article infoEdmar Meléndez-Jaramillo, César Cantú-Ayala, Uriel Jeshua Sánchez-Reyes§, Fatima Magdalena Sandoval-Becerra§, Bernal Herrera-Fernández|
‡ Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Linares, Mexico
§ Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Victoria, Victoria, Mexico
| Universidad Nacional Heredia, San José, Costa Rica
Open Access

Abstract

Butterflies are one of the most recognized and useful groups for the monitoring and establishment of important conservation areas and management policies. In the present study, we estimate the richness and diversity, as well as the association value of submontane scrub, oak forest, and cloud forest species at Cerro Bufa El Diente, within the Sierra de San Carlos priority land region, located in the Central-western region of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Three sampling sites were established based on criteria of vegetation distribution per altitudinal floor. One site for each altitudinal floor and vegetation type. Sampling was carried out in permanent transects on a monthly basis at each site, using an aerial entomological net and ten Van Someren-Rydon traps, during four sampling periods: early dry season, late dry season, early wet season and late wet season. In total, 7,611 specimens belonging to six families, 20 subfamilies, 32 tribes, 148 genera and 243 species of the study area were collected. Nymphalidae was the most abundant family with 3,454 specimens, representing 45.38% of total abundance in the study area. Lower abundance was recorded in Hesperiidae (19.17%), Pieridae (16.41%), Lycaenidae (10.17%), Papilionidae (5.12%), and finally Riodinidae (3.74%). The highest species richness was presented in the family Hesperiidae with 34.57% of the total obtained species followed by Nymphalidae (30.45%), Lycaenidae (15.23%), Pieridae (9.88%), Papilionidae (5.76%), and Riodinidae (4.12%). Twenty-seven species were categorized as abundant, these species, Anaea aidea (Guérin-Méneville, 1844), Libytheana carinenta larvata (Strecker, 1878), Pyrgus oileus (Linnaeus, 1767), Mestra amymone (Ménétriés, 1857) and Phoebis agarithe agarithe (Boisduval, 1836) presented the highest number of specimens. Sixty-five species were considered common, constituting 41.73% of the total number of butterflies, 63 frequent (9.76% of the total abundance), 55 limited (2.54%) and 33 rare (0.43%). The greatest number of specimens and species, as well as alpha diversity, were presented on the lowest altitudinal floor, made up of submontane scrub, and decreased significantly with increasing altitude. According to the cluster analysis, low and intermediate altitude sites constitute an area of distribution of species that prefer tropical conditions, while the third-floor site forms an independent group of high mountain species. The greatest abundance and richness of species, as well as alpha diversity, was obtained during the last wet season, decreasing significantly towards the early dry season. Moreover, through the use of the association value, 19 species were designated as indicators, three for the last altitudinal floor, three for the intermediate and 13 for the first. The present work represents the first report of the altitudinal variation in richness, abundance and diversity of butterflies in the northeast of Mexico. These results highlight the importance of the conservation of this heterogeneous habitat and establish reference data for the diurnal Lepidoptera fauna of the region.

Keywords

Diurnal Lepidoptera, diversity, elevation, indicator species, priority land region, seasonality

Introduction

More than 155,000 species of Lepidoptera have been described to date (Nieukerken et al. 2011), as such the order comprise 10% of the known animal diversity (Kristensen et al. 2007). The Butterflies (Papilionoidea) comprise six families: Papilionidae, Pieridae, Lycaenidae, Riodinidae, Nymphalidae and Hesperiidae, and together represent 13% of total species in Lepidoptera worldwide (Kawahara and Breinholt 2014; Llorente et al. 2014). In Mexico, according to Warren (2000), Llorente et al. (2006) and Llorente et al. (2014), it is estimated that there are 2,049 species, corresponding to 9.4% of the Papilionoidea described worldwide. Butterflies are among the best environment quality indicator insects, because they are highly diverse and abundant (Prince-Chacón et al. 2011), easy to identify at field and due to their rapic biological cycles, they are easy to sample in any time of the year (Freitas et al. 2006). In addition, they are affected by constant landscape changes, because they are closely related to the vegetation (Marín et al. 2014), and most of their life cycle is associated with specific plants (Orozco et al. 2009). Furthermore, they respond to the stratification of the vegetation in terms of light, wind, humidity and temperature gradients (Montero-Muñoz et al. 2013). Therefore, they are very sensitive to climatic and ecological variations occurring in natural gradients, such as elevation (Camero et al. 2007).

Numerous studies show the close association between altitude and changes in composition and diversity of species (Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain among which the Rapoport effect states that the richness and distribution ranges of species are inversely related to altitude, with higher richness at low elevations (Sanders 2002), while the hypothesis of average domain indicates that the greatest number of species occurs at intermediate altitudes (Brown and Lomolino 1998). Besides, McCoy (1990) determined that, if the distribution differs between elevations, then the time scale used would strongly influence the evaluation of species richness. Thus, seasonal variations are strongly linked to elevational patterns of communities (Castro and Espinosa 2016).

In Mexico, several checklists of butterflies from altitudinal transects ranging from 600 to 3,100 m asl, including different vegetation types, have been published (Llorente et al. 1986; Luis and Llorente 1990; Luis et al. 1991; Vargas et al. 1994, 1999; Díaz-Batres et al. 2001; Luna and Llorente 2004; Luna et al. 2008; Luna et al. 2010; Álvarez et al. 2016). In addition, at a temporal level, the climatic factors influencing butterfly species turnover have been addressed in previous studies (Luis and Llorente 1990, 1991; Vargas et al. 1994; Hernández-Mejía et al. 2008; Luna et al. 2008; Pozo et al. 2008; Luna et al. 2010). However, little is known about the entomofauna and especially about the butterfly ecology of the extreme, humid and dry environments of northeastern Mexico, which is inhabited by a very special group that represents about 15% of national entomofauna, and harbors elements of the Atlantic District of the United States (Luz and Madero 2011). Knowing the distribution of the species richness and abundance of butterflies in altitudinal gradients, allows to elucidate patterns and processes of biological diversification, occupying an important role to demonstrate the conservation value of a particular habitat (DeVries and Walla 2001). Likewise, the study of communities and populations of butterflies over time, can offer important information to implement urgent measures before the effects of environmental disturbance become irreversible (Núñez-Bustos et al. 2011).

In this context, the Bufa El Diente mountain constitutes one of the highest elevation gradients (up to 1,460 m asl) in the Sierra de San Carlos, which is an isolated orographic unit within the coastal plain of the North Gulf of Mexico (Treviño et al. 2002). The region is considered an area of special interest for conservation and requires an evaluation of its natural resources (Arriaga et al. 2000). The objectives of the present study were: 1) to determine the butterflies species richness in Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico; 2) analyze the variation of Rhopalocera species richness, abundance and diversity along an altitudinal gradient, and during different seasons of the year; 3) analyze the influence of climatological variables (temperature, precipitation, relative humidity and solar radiation) on the abundance and richness of butterfly species; and 4) quantify the indicator value of species by each altitudinal site.

Methods

Study area

The Cerro Bufa El Diente mountain is located in the Sierra de San Carlos, located in the central-western portion of the State of Tamaulipas, between 24°23.03' and 24°51.60'N, and 98°32.40' and 99°12.04'W (Figure 1). Sierra de San Carlos (also known as Sierra Chiquita or Sierra de Cruillas) is a physiographic discontinuity in the Coastal Plain of the Gulf of Mexico. Due to its relative geographical isolation in relation to the Sierra Madre Oriental, it can be conceived as an ecological island, where relatively particular populations and communities have been originated or conserved (Briones-Villarreal 1991). The area is considered as a Mexican Priority Region for Conservation (RTP) of biodiversity by the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO). The vegetation types of this RTP mainly comprise temperate ecosystems in the mountain part and submontane scrub in the piedmont (Arriaga et al. 2000). A main characteristic of the region is that it represents the boreal limit of the cloud forest in northeastern Mexico (Valdez-Tamez et al. 2003). Climate of the region is semi-warm sub-humid with summer rains; average annual temperature is 18 to 22 °C, and the annual precipitation ranges between 500 and 2,500 mm (Treviño et al. 2002).

Figure 1. 

Study area and location of sampling sites A location of Tamaulipas in Mexico B location of Sierra de San Carlos within Tamaulipas C study area (red square) within Sierra de San Carlos D elevation sites in Cerro Bufa El Diente.

Site locations

Three sites were established based on Llorente (1984) and Briones (1991) criteria for the altitudinal gradient and vegetation types. Site 1 has the lowest elevation at 553 m asl and corresponds to submontane scrub (SS) (24°33.04'N, 98°57.16'W). Site 2 is located at an intermediate altitude of 783 m asl where the plant community consists of oak forest (OF) (24°32.04'N, 98°57.13'W). Site 3 is the highest elevation with 1085 m asl and a community of cloud forest (CF) (24°31.44'N, 98°57.41'W; Table 1).

Synthesis of the collection sites.

Site Vegetation Frequent species General description
1 Submontane scrub (SS) The dominant shrubs are Helietta parvifolia, Leucophyllum frutescens and Acacia rigidula, or Havardia pallens, Cordia boissieri and Acacia berlandieri. It grows in the piedmont and hillsides with south exposure, at altitudes of 500 to 800 m asl.
2 Oak forest (OF) Along with Quercus canbyi, it is common to find Arbutus xalapensis, Quercus clivicola and Quercus virginiana, or, in addition to Quercus rysophylla, there are other oak species: Q. sartorii, Q. laceyi, Q. clivicola, as well as Arbutus xalapensis, Pinus pseudostrobus, Persea podadenia , Carya ovata, Prunus serotina and Platanus occidentalis. It is possible to recognize two variants of this type of vegetation. The first one is the Quercus canbyi forest. It is found around 700 m asl on slopes with north exposure, bordering the submontane scrub. From there it extends up to 1,000 m asl, where it comes into contact with the Quercus rysophylla forest, which is the second variant.
3 Cloud forest (CF) Abies guatemalensis, is the most abundant species, followed by Carya ovata. Oaks as a whole are also important, followed by Carpinus caroliniana, Ostrya virginiana, Gleditsia triacanthos, Persea podadenia, Ilex rubra, Acer saccharum, Ungnadia speciosa and Crataegus rosei. Restricted to the upper parts of Cerro Bufa El Diente, with north exposure, between 1,300 and 1,400 m asl.

Collection and processing of specimens

The collection of individuals was conducted using aerial entomological nets. At each site, routes were made along a 1 km permanent transect, following the techniques recommended by Villarreal et al. (2006). Also, along with the use of the aerial entomological nets, the sampling was carried out using Van Someren-Rydon traps (Rydon 1964). Ten traps were placed along a permanent transect 500 m long, at a distance of 50 m from one another, and between 1 to 2.5 m high from the ground. Bait used for the traps consisted of a fermented mixture of seasonal fruits: plantain (Musa paradisiaca), pineapple (Ananas comosus), mango (Mangifera indica), and guava (Psidium guajava).

Monthly samplings were made for each of the sites, during the period from September 2012 to August 2013, resulting in a total of three samples-months per season: Early dry season (EDS: December, January, February), Late dry season (LDS: March, April, May), Early rainy season (ERS: June, July, August), and Late rainy season (LRS: September, October, November). Seasons were defined on basis of historical data of total monthly values of temperature and precipitation (average of 1990 to 2010), which were obtained from a meteorological station located within the study area in the municipality of San Carlos. Therefore, a total of 36 sampling units (three samplings per four seasons per three sites) were considered. Additionally, for each site and date of collection, the temperature and relative humidity variables were recorded using a Kestrel 3500 portable weather station, while values of precipitation and solar radiation were extracted with QGIS 2.18 software (Quantum GIS 2017) from the WorldClim database available in http://worldclim.org/ and described by Fick and Hijmans (2017).

The collected entomological specimens were mounted according to the procedure described by Andrade et al. (2013). All specimens were labeled and deposited in the entomological collection of the Instituto Tecnológico de Cd. Victoria, Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico, and in the collection of the Department of Conservation of the Faculty of Forestry Sciences at the Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Linares, Nuevo León, Mexico. For taxonomic identification of specimens, the works of Scott (1986), Llorente et al. (1997), Luis et al. (2003), Garwood and Lehman (2005), Glassberg (2007), Vargas et al. (2008) and Luis et al. (2010), were consulted. Phylogenetic arrangement of species followed Warren et al. (2012).

Data analysis

The abundance was quantified based on the total number of individuals per species collected at each site, season and for the entire study area. Five categories of species were considered according to the total abundance recorded: rare (species with one specimen), scarce (from 2 to 5), frequent (from 6 to 21), common (from 22 to 81), and abundant (with 82 or more specimens) (Luna et al. 2010). To corroborate significant differences between the abundance associated to each site, as well as to each season of the year, nonparametric tests of Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney were carried out. As a measure of specific richness, the total number of species obtained was used for each site, season and for the entire study area. A permutation test was conducted to determine significant variations in the number of species. Both tests (for abundance and species richness) were carried out using the Rcommander package (Fox 2005) in the program R 3.2.3 (R Development Core Team 2015). To calculate the potential number of species, the nonparametric estimators of Chao 1 and Jackknife 1 were used. These indices were chosen according to: 1) a distribution model of abundance is not previously assumed, 2) they are robust in calculating the minimum estimate of specific richness, 3) they are necessary as a complementary measure in biodiversity analyzes, and 4) Chao 1 considers the association between the number of species represented by an individual (singletons) and those represented by two individuals (doubletons) in the sample, while Jackknife 1 is a conservative index based on incidence data (presence or absence) of those species found only in one sample (uniques) (Magurran 2004; Hortal et al. 2006; Villarreal et al. 2006; Gotelli and Colwell 2011). The estimators were calculated with 100 randomizations without replacement using the software EstimateS 9.1 (Colwell 2013), based on the abundance of the species recorded by each sampling unit, and were obtained for each site, station of the year and for the entire study area. To complement the estimation of richness, and as a measure for the analysis of sampling efficiency, the linear dependence model was used. It assumes that as the list of species increases, the probability of adding new taxa decreases exponentially, and is an ideal model for studying small areas and known taxa (Gómez-Anaya et al. 2014). The value obtained from the coefficient of determination (R2) was used, as well as the slope value, which allows to measure the quality of the faunistic inventory. The calculation was based on the number of samples for each site, as well as for each season of the year and for the entire study area; the procedure was performed in the program Statistica 13.3 (TIBCO Software Inc. 2017).

In this study, alpha diversity was considered a measure of association or relation between abundance and number of species. Therefore, Simpson’s dominance index and Shannon’s entropy or uncertainty index were used for its measurement; these indices were calculated for the entire study area, as well as for each site and season using the vegan package (Oksanen et al. 2012) of the platform R 3.2.3. The SHE analysis S (species richness), H (Shannon-Wiener diversity index) and E (evenness as measured using the Shannon-Wiener evenness index) is a method that consists of analyzing the behavior of three components: diversity, the natural logarithm of evenness and the proportion of the previous two as a function of abundance (Buzas and Hayek 1996). To discriminate between the types of distribution, the component with the least variation was identified in relation to different values of number of species and abundance. If the diversity parameter remains more stable, then the distribution corresponds to a logarithmic series; if the most stable is the proportion between natural logarithm of evenness and diversity, a normal log distribution is attributed; and if evenness is the most stable, then the distribution will be of a broken stick type (Carreño-Rocabado 2006). The SHE test was carried out for the entire study area, as well as for each site using the forams package (Aluizio 2015) in R 3.2.3. Beta diversity was measured as the faunal similarity between sites and seasons, using the Bray-Curtis similarity index. In addition, a cluster analysis was carried out to define groups of sites and seasons according to their species composition, using the adjusted Euclidean units as distance measure and the Ward method as an amalgamation algorithm. Calculations were made in the Rcommander package (Fox 2005) in the R 3.2.3 program. A Spearman correlation test was applied between the monthly averages of microclimate variables (temperature, precipitation, relative humidity and solar radiation) and ecological parameters (number of species and abundance) using the Rcommander package (Fox 2005) in R 3.2.3.

Finally, to calculate the association value of each butterfly species to the habitat type, the indicator value index (IndVal) was used (Dufrene and Legendre 1997). This is based on the degree of specificity (exclusivity of the species to a particular site based on its abundance), and the degree of fidelity (frequency of occurrence within the same habitat) (Tejeda-Cruz et al. 2008), expressed in a percentage value. The analyzes were carried out in the abdsv package in platform R 3.2.3, using 1,000 random permutations to define the level of significance. Indicator species with an index equal to or greater than 75% were categorized as “characteristics”, which are defined by their high specificity to a given habitat, while species with a value less than 75% but equal to or greater than 50% considered as “detectors”, which present different degrees of preference for diverse habitats (McGeoch et al. 2002).

Results

Abundance, richness, and diversity of butterflies in Cerro Bufa El Diente

A total of 7,611 specimens of Papilionoidea was collected from 36 samples, between September 2012 to August 2013. These belong to six families, 20 subfamilies, 32 tribes, 148 genera, and 243 species (Appendix 1). Nymphalidae was the most abundant family with 3,454 specimens, representing 45.38% of total abundance in the study area. Lower abundance was recorded in Hesperiidae (19.17%), Pieridae (16.41%), Lycaenidae (10.17%), Papilionidae (5.12%), and finally Riodinidae (3.74%). The highest species richness was also presented found in the family Hesperiidae with 34.57% of the total obtained species followed by Nymphalidae (30.45%), Lycaenidae (15.23%), Pieridae (9.88%), Papilionidae (5.76%), and Riodinidae (4.12%). Twenty-seven species were categorized as abundant (with more than 82 specimens) and accounted for 45.54% of the total abundance. These abundant species, Anaea aidea (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) (442 individuals), Libytheana carinenta larvata (Strecker, 1878) (213), Pyrgus oileus (Linnaeus, 1767) (176), Mestra amymone (Ménétriés, 1857) (172) and Phoebis agarithe agarithe (Boisduval, 1836) (167), among others presented the highest number of specimens. Sixty-five species were considered common, constituting 41.73% of the total number of butterflies. Sixty-three species were considered frequent (743 specimens) by occupying 9.76% of the total abundance. Fifty-five species were scarce (2.54% of total abundance) and 33 were rare (0.43%) (Appendix 1).

The richness estimators indicated that the total number of butterfly species in the study area was 278 species using Chao 1 and 283 through Jackknife 1(Table 2, Figure 2), suggesting that the observed total of 243 species represents 87.35% (Chao 1) or 85.91% (Jackknife 1) of the actual richness. The data showed a good fit to the linear dependence model (R2 = 0.93), with a registered proportion of species of 92.40% and a slope less to 0.1. Total diversity values of Papilionoidea in Cerro Bufa El Diente were 0.98 for the Simpson index and 4.16 for the Shannon index (Table 2). The SHE analysis shows an assemblage with less variation in the natural logarithm of evenness, suggesting a broken stick type distribution (Table 3, Figure 3).

Richness, abundance and diversity parameters of Papilionoidea in Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Key: S obs = Observed richness; N = Abundance; S est = Estimated richness; LDM = Linear dependence model; R2 = LDM determination coefficient; 1-D = Simpson diversity index; H´= Shannon diversity index.

Ecological parameter Site Season Total
Submontane scrub (553 m asl) Oak forest (783 m asl) Cloud forest (1085 m asl) Dry Rainy
Early (Dec–Feb) Late (Mar–May) Early (Jun–Aug) Late (Sep–Nov)
S obs * 194 a 180 a 129 b 65 a 165 b 187 b 207 b 243
N * 3726 a 2641 a 1244 b 297 a 1970 b 2637 b 2707 b 7611
S est
Chao 1 210.67 197.55 133.11 69.33 198.07 208.00 233.46 278.20
Jackknife 1 229.75 213.92 146.42 84.56 204.11 232.33 266.56 282.86
LDM
R2 0.96 0.96 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93
S est 219.51 205.61 154.23 95.75 195.55 217.60 243.83 262.99
Slope 0.34 0.39 0.41 1.58 1.04 0.93 1.35 0.04
Diversity
1-D ** 0.97 a 0.97 a 0.89 b 0.84 a 0.98 b 0.98 b 0.98 b 0.98
H´ ** 4.06 a 3.93 a 3.19 b 2.37 a 4.11 b 4.17 b 4.25 b 4.16
Figure 2. 

Species accumulation and estimator curves in the Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Upper graphic: accumulation curves for all study area. Lower graphic: Site 1 (red color), Site 2 (blue color) and Site 3 (green color).

SHE analysis to identify the type of abundance distribution of butterflies in Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Marked cells (*) highlight the component with the lowest percentage variation.

Sites Abundance range ln E H ln E/ln S Distribution
Site 1, Submontane scrub (553 m asl) 432 to 3726 46.57 * 94.96 51.90 Broken stick
Site 2, Oak forest (783 m asl) 323 to 2641 36.45 * 97.76 39.82 Broken stick
Site 3 Cloud forest (1085 m asl) 164 to 1244 59.83 * 90.65 67.99 Broken stick
Total, Cerro Bufa El Diente 164 to 7611 33.83 * 84.71 43.45 Broken stick
Figure 3. 

SHE analysis of diversity for the Cerro Bufa El Diente and for each one of altitudinal sites. H diversity (Shannon index); ln E natural logarithm of evenness; ln E/ ln S quotient of two previous.

Altitudinal variation of butterflies

Abundance and number of species of butterflies was significantly different (p < 0.05) only between the highest site compared to the intermediate and low sites (Site 3 compared to the Site 2 and 1; Table 2). Both abundance and species richness decreased with increasing altitude (Table 2). In the lowest altitude site, 194 species were recorded which represented between 84.44 andto 92.09% of the estimated richness with the models used. In the second site, the number decreased to 180 species (84.14–91.12% of the estimated) and at the highest site, 129 species were recorded (83.64–96.91% of the estimated) (Figure 2). Determination coefficient in all sites was greater than 0.95, suggesting a good fit of the linear dependence model to the data obtained at each site; contrarily, the slope values was greater than 0.1 in all sites (Table 2).

Alpha diversity decreased progressively with increasing altitude and was significantly different between the highest altitude and the other two sites (p < 0.05) (Table 2). The result of the SHE analysis for three sites showed a lower variation in natural logarithm of evenness, indicating a broken stick type distribution (Table 3, Figure 3). Of the 243 species recorded in the Cerro Bufa El Diente, 98 were distributed along the entire altitudinal gradient, 64 were recorded only in two sites, and 81 were unique to one of the three sites. Of these 81 unique species, 50 were exclusively from Site 1, 19 for Site 2, and 12 for Site 3 (Appendix 1). The similarity values were greater than 50% between the nearest sites (Site 1 and 2, Site 2 and 3), and less than 50% between the more distant sites (Site 1 and 3). According to the cluster analysis, sites 1 and 2 composed an area of distribution for species that prefer warm climatic conditions, while Site 3 form an independent group of high mountain species (Figure 4).

Spearman correlations of abundance and richness of butterfly species with climatic factors in Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Marked (*) correlations are significant at p< 0.05.

Abundance Species richness
Mean temperature (°C) 0.720 * 0.706 *
Total precipitation (mm) 0.734 * 0.713 *
Solar radiation (kJ) 0.580 0.608 *
Relative humidity (%) 0.748 * 0.664 *
Figure 4. 

Cluster analysis from sites in the Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Seasonal variation of butterflies

Differences in abundance and richness of Papilionoidea were found between early dry season and the other three seasons (Table 2, Figure 7). The highest number of specimens was obtained during the rainy season, with 2,707 individuals in the late period and 2,637 in the early one. Lower abundance was found during the late and early dry seasons (1,970 and 297 specimens, respectively) (Table 2). Species richness was higher in the late rainy season, with 207 species representing between 77.66 and 88.67% of estimated richness. Such value decreased to the early dry season (65 species, 67.89 to 93.75%), but increased at the end of dry season (165 species, 80.84 to 84.38%) (Table 2, Figure 5). Determination coefficients of the linear dependence model were higher than 0.90 for all seasons, while the slope values were greater than 0.1 (Table 2).

Highest values of temperature, precipitation, relative humidity and solar radiation were found during both periods of the rainy season (Figure 6). Relative humidity was highly correlated with abundance, while precipitation was better correlated with species richness. Interaction between climate variables compared with the abundance and species richness was positive; however, the correlation between abundance and solar radiation was not significant (Table 4).

According to diversity indices, early dry season was statistically different to the other three seasons (p < 0.05) (Table 2). Shannon and Simpson indices indicated the highest diversity during the end of dry season and both periods of the rainy season. Lower diversity was found in early dry season (Table 2). Only 49 species from the total observed, were present during all seasons, 84 were recorded in three seasons, 66 in only two and 44 were exclusive of one season. Of these exclusive species, 19 were recorded at the end of the rainy season, 14 in the early rainy season, 10 at the beginning of the dry season, and only one in the late dry season (Table 2).

According to the Bray-Curtis index, the early and late rainy season had the greatest similarity (80.50%). Rest of the comparisons are above 50%, in the case of the end of the rainy season and the late dry season (72.57%), and from the early rainy season with the late dry season (68.20%), and below 50%, between the beginning and end of the dry season (24.26%), the beginning of the dry and rainy season (19.15%), and the end of the rainy season and the early dry season (19.11%). Cluster analysis shows the formation of two groups, according to the species composition in each season. The first group is composed only of species of the early dry season, and the second group includes species in the late dry season and the beginning and end of the rainy season (Figure 8).

Figure 5. 

Species accumulation and estimator curves by season in the Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Upper graphic: Early dry season (black color) and late dry season (dark red color). Lower graphic: Early rainy season (black color) and late rainy season (dark blue color).

Figure 6. 

Monthly climate variation in Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Upper graphic: Variation of temperature and precipitation. Lower graphic: Variation of solar radiation and relative humidity.

Figure 7. 

Monthly variation of abundance and richness of butterfly species in Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Figure 8. 

Cluster analysis from seasons in the Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Indicator species

The IndVal allowed to quantify the percentage of association for the 243 species in the study area, of which 168 had a higher probability (p < 1) of being considered as indicators (Appendix 1). Of these, 66 presented values equal to or greater than 50%, categorizing themselves as detectors or characteristics, while only 19 presented a significant indicator value (p < 0.05, Appendix 1). The remaining 75 species had association values equal to or less than 33.33%, with null probabilities (p = 1) of being considered as characteristics of a habitat (Appendix 1). The detector species with the highest values of the index were: Ministrymon azia (Hewitson, 1873) (70.37%), Urbanus procne (Plötz, 1881) (63.89%) and Chioides zilpa (Butler, 1872) (57.14%) for the Site 1; Achlyodes pallida (R. Felder, 1869) (69.70%), Smyrna blomfildia datis Fruhstorfer, 1908 (62.96%) and Rekoa marius (Lucas, 1857) (62.32%) for the Site 2; as well as Amblyscirtes celia Skinner, 1895 (60.61%) for the Site 3. With respect to the characteristic species, Microtia elva elva H. Bates, 1864 (94.23%), Chlosyne theona bollii (WH Edwards, 1877) (90.91%) Heraclides anchisiades idaeus Fabricius, 1793 (86.67%) presented the highest values for the Site 1; Oarisma edwardsii (W. Barnes, 1897) (83.33%) and Quinta cannae (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) (80.00%) were characteristic species of the Site 3 (Appendix 1).

Discussion

Faunistic inventory and biodiversity of butterflies in Cerro Bufa El Diente

In Cerro Bufa El Diente, the superfamily Papilionoidea consists of 243 species that represent 69.43% of the richness recorded for Tamaulipas (García 2005; García et al. 2009), and 11.86% in relation Mexico (Warren 2000; Llorente et al. 2006). Hesperiidae are the family with greatest richness, which represents 75.68% of the diversity of the family for the State, and 9.78% in comparison with that of the country. The abundance and species richness by families found in this study is very different when compared to research conducted in other parts of the country. This is due to the specific biotic and abiotic characteristics of each ecoregion, which allow the development of a particular type of fauna (Espinosa and Ocegueda 2008), in this case of the butterflies. This also may be occurring at the species level, where the characteristics of the area, as well as the presence and abundance of its host plants will determine the dominant species (Luis and Llorente 1990; Vargas et al. 1994).

When comparing results found in this research with the few systematic and rigorously sampled inventories of Papilionoidea in Mexico, it can be observed that the species richness in the present study area is high. De la Luz and Madero (2011) in collaboration with the North American Butterfly Association listed 266 species for the state of Nuevo Leon. Luna-Reyes et al. (2010) recorded 145 species for the Lobos Canyon, Yautepec, Morelos state. In the same way, Peña-Morales (2009) listed 120 for two fragments of tropical deciduous forest from the state of Tamaulipas, one in Gómez Farías and the other in Victoria. Luna-Reyes et al. (2008) recorded 142 species for the Huautla mountain range, in the states of Morelos and Puebla. Hernández-Mejía et al. (2008) listed 213 species for Malinalco, State of Mexico. Luna-Reyes and Llorente (2004) listed 85 species for four entities that comprise the Sierra Nevada. Díaz-Batres et al. (2001) recorded 55 species in La Michilía, Durango state. Bizuet-Flores et al. (2001) obtained 69 species for El Chico National Park, Hidalgo state. Luis and Llorente (1993) listed 161 species for Omiltemi Park, Guerrero. Balcázar (1993) presented 205 species for Pedernales, Michoacán. Luis and Llorente (1990) recorded 65 species for the Dinamos, Magdalena Contreras, D.F. Beutelspacher (1982) listed 141 species for El Chorreadero, Chiapas. Considering that these authors used sampling methodologies similar to our study, it can be suggested that Cerro Bufa El Diente is a very important area for distribution and diversity of Rhopalocera in Tamaulipas and Mexico.

Richness estimators suggested that the diurnal butterfly fauna was obtained almost entirely in the Cerro Bufa El Diente, although it is possible that there are still some species to be recorded. In this regard, several authors point out that the increase in number of samples and time of study, or selection of other sampling methods, can aid in complementing faunistic inventories (Sparrow et al. 1994; Daily and Ehrlich 1995; DeVries et al. 1997, 1999; Hughes et al. 1998; Caldas and Robbins 2003; Jiménez et al. 2004; Romo and García 2005; Sackmann 2006; Hernández-Mejía et al. 2008; Bonebrake and Sorto 2009; Pedraza et al. 2010; Álvarez-García et al. 2016; González-Valdivia et al. 2016). However, the critical value in which a faunal inventory can be considered as reliable or complete is from 70% representativeness (observed richness in relation to estimated richness), since above that limit, the number of samples required to register all of the species increases remarkably and disproportionately (Jiménez and Hortal 2003). Taking into account the high percentage of representativeness obtained in this study, it would be necessary to conduct a large number of additional samples only to record a minimum number of possible missing species, since these are considered as accidental species that come from adjacent sites (Thomas 1994; Pozo et al. 2005; Hortal et al. 2006).

Comparing the number of species between different habitats is often enough to give a rapid assessment of a biodiversity measure. However, it is necessary to resort to the use of other statistical measures in order to make comparisons with other studies (Magurran 2004). In this investigation, quantification of diversity was done mainly by the values obtained from Shannon (4.16) and Simpson (0.98). The diversity index of Simpson gives a greater weight to the abundant species and underestimate rare ones, returning values between 0 (low diversity) to a maximum of 1- 1/ S (Moreno 2001). Values of the Shannon index are usually between 1.5 and 3.5, rarely surpassing a value of 4 in very diverse communities (Margalef 1972). This suggests that diversity of butterflies in the study area is actually very high. Moreover, observed values were higher than the diversity present in some tropical communities, where the existing conditions favors a high number of species and individuals, as observed in Montero and Ortiz (2013) for Tablazo Paramo, Cundinamarca, and Camero et al. (2007) in Combeima River, department of Tolima, both in Colombia, and who obtained a total Shannon value of 3.9 for each zone. Accordingly, the broken stick distribution proposed by MacArthur (1960), corroborates ecology heterogeneity of Cerro Bufa El Diente according to the SHE analysis, corresponds biologically to communities of species that colonize and distribute resources at random. In this type of distribution, the most common species are more susceptible to being invaded by the colonizing species than the rare species, resulting in a more equitable community (Gotelli and Graves 1996). The opposite of this distribution is the geometric series, since it reflects the lowest equity among the species of a community (Tokeshi 1990; Fattorini 2006).

On the other hand, the community structure of butterflies may represent evidence of the ecological characteristics of the study area, as a semi-preserved habitat. Community was formed by a moderate group of frequent species and few rare species, which is a characteristic pattern of areas with intermediate ecological quality. On the contrary, and according to Pedraza et al. (2010), a locality with excellent ecological quality is characterized by an assemblage with few frequent species, and a large number of scarce species. All this evidence agrees with previous values of ecological integrity obtained for Sierra de San Carlos (Arriaga et al. 2000). In addition, species that according to Pozo et al. (2005) and Raguso and Llorente (1991) are considered as indicators of disturbed habitats, were present in the study area.

Elevational effects on diversity patterns of butterflies

Altitude is a variable frequently related to changes in species richness and abundance (Janzen 1993), producing changes in distribution patterns along altitudinal gradients (Llorente 1984; Andrade-Correa 2002), which was demonstrated in this study. In general, a negative correlation of altitude was observed with abundance or species richness; that is, a reduction in the number of specimens and species as the altitudinal gradient increases. According to Andrade-Correa (2002), it is observed that diversity and percentage of exclusive species decrease towards higher altitude areas. Moreover, Hernández-Mejía et al. (2008) states that the overall tendency of richness and abundance is to decrease with the altitudinal gradient. Although each family shows a different rate of decline, Nymphalidae decreases faster, which may be because of their higher number of species accentuates the altitudinal effect. Contrarily the Pieridae family comprises many eurioic species, and therefore the change in richness is almost imperceptible as the altitude increases. In relation to the general abundance of each family, it can be observed how this decreased notably with the increase in altitude. This pattern in the number of individuals has been observed in other studies with butterflies (Luis and Llorente 1990; Vargas et al. 1994, 1999; Andrade-Correa 2002; Luna-Reyes and Llorente 2004; Palacios and Constantino 2006; Camero et al. 2007; Hernández et al. 2008; Ospina et al. 2010; De León 2012; Carrero et al. 2013), as well as in different groups of insects, such as the necrophilous entomofauna (Sánchez et al. 1993) and Scarabaeoidea beetles (Morón 1994).

The variation found in the community patterns could be originate in the abiotic factors that are modified along the altitudinal gradient, such as the air pressure (which decreases with the increase in altitude), solar radiation and precipitation (both increase with the increase in elevation) (McCain and Grytnes 2010), as well as the increase of unfavorable environments and the reduction in availability of resources (Camero 2003; Camero et al. 2007). This can favor some species in particular, allowing them to increase their abundance at a certain altitudinal level, as was observed in the case of the species categorized as indicators, three for the last altitudinal site, three at the intermediate site and 13 for the first. In addition, the available area that species can occupy decreases with altitude (McCain and Grytnes 2010), which may cause a reduction in the number of individuals per species in higher sites (Camero 2003; Camero et al. 2007). Besides, the linear decrease in temperature, which decreases on average 0.68 °C per 100 meters of increase in elevation, is maybe one of the most important abiotic factors in the altitudinal distribution of species (McCain and Grytnes 2010). Therefore, the lower abundance in the higher altitude site could be related to its lower temperature, which represent an unfavorable factor for these insects (Kremen et al. 1993; Fagua 1999). The importance of this variable has also been observed in other studies of Lepidoptera (Luis and Llorente 1990; Vargas et al. 1994, 1999; Luna-Reyes and Llorente 2004; Hernández et al. 2008; De León 2012).

Vegetation is another factor of great influence for butterfly composition along altitudinal gradients (Llorente 1984; Luis et al. 2000). In the study area, the first altitudinal site corresponds to submontane scrub, which shows a high density of plants in the herbaceous and shrub layers (Briones 1991; Martínez 1998). Such condition represents a greater availability of food resources, allowing the increase in abundance of diurnal Lepidoptera in this area. On the other hand, the intermediate altitudinal site represents a transitional zone between the Papilionoidea fauna of the submontane scrub and the fauna of the cloud forest, which was corroborated with the Bray-Curtis index. In relation to this, the lower similarity between the extreme sites of the altitudinal gradient would be determined by the distance between both zones. In addition, the fact that the percentages of similarity were mostly greater than 50%, establishes that the compositions of the communities in the study area are similar in each site, this maybe because the Sierra de San Carlos and especially the rocky massif Bufa El Diente represent ideal sites for research on biodiversity over a period of a year due to its small area (Martínez 1998).

According to the behavior of both variables, abundance and diversity in the different sites, it can be suggested that vegetation and perhaps temperature and humidity are the determining factors in the abundance and richness of species of butterflies in the study area, parameters that decrease with altitude. Protecting populations of Papilionoidea in mountain areas, often depends on the conservation of lower adjacent areas, where the greatest abundance may occur (Andrade-Correa 2002). Another issue directly associated with the conservation of the populations, is that middle and high mountain areas are frequently used as natural corridors in the migration of butterfly species (Monteagudo et al. 2001). It is also necessary to take into account the displacements that occur from the lower parts towards the high elevation areas, because species search for foraging sites and better climatic conditions (Bonebrake et al. 2010). Therefore, biodiversity inventories along an altitudinal gradient, such as the one carried out in this research, serve as monitoring studies of habitat quality, which allows identifying important areas in conservation and management policies (Dewenter and Teja 2000; Hoyle and Harbone 2005; Fattorini 2006).

Seasonal effects on diversity patterns of butterflies

In general, the pattern of monthly variation of abundance and species richness was similar to the results reported by Luis and Llorente (1990), Luis et al. (1991), Vargas et al. (1994), Hernández-Mejía et al. (2008), Luna et al. (2008), Pozo et al. (2008) and Luna et al. (2010). From March to November, the greatest number of species and specimens was recorded, with lower values between December and February, the first months of the dry season. As for the Shannon index, both the end of the dry season as early and late wet season had the highest values, which were above 4.0, and so they represent a high diversity (Margalef 1972). In addition, the Bray-Curtis index and Cluster analysis indicated that late dry season and two periods of the wet season had a very different faunal composition compared to the early dry season. Therefore, the most favorable flight period for butterflies in the study area occurs during the last months of the dry season and the months corresponding to the wet season.

Seasonality is a very important factor in species distribution, being of great relevance for insects, since they cannot regulate their body temperature and therefore require favorable environmental conditions for metabolic activities and development of their life cycles (Brown 1984; Morón and Terrón 1984; Wolda 1988). Among the microclimatic factors that influence the seasonal distribution of butterflies in Cerro Bufa El Diente are the temperature and relative humidity. This temporal association is commonly recorded in tropical areas (Arteaga 1991; Luis et al. 1991; Vargas et al. 1992, 1999; Balcázar 1993), in which the imagos are most active during the early and late wet seasons, that is, when the availability of resources is greater, wintering in diapause (Scott 1979; Courtney 1986).

Additionally, butterflies are closely associated to plants, and their presence depends on the flora and structure of the vegetation (Shapiro 1974). Thus, it is possible that the wetter conditions in June to November favored the increase of diversity and biomass of the plant community, which can lead to the establishment of more species and larger populations of butterflies (Rhoades 1983). Temperature is more stable in this period, but humidity conditions are contrasting and remarkably superior with respect to the dry season, in which the total precipitation is 225 mm, while that in the rainy season is 518.7 mm. Although the first rains take place towards the end of May, the greater precipitation occurs from September to November, and as a consequence there is greater cloudiness that reduces evaporation. During this season, vegetation diversity and density increases, thus providing a greater amount of resources that are used by butterflies for their feeding, oviposition and protection, which favor the presence of more species with larger populations. Besides, the presence of rainfall correlates directly with abundance and richness of insects (Wolda 1988), since it affects the physiology of the reproduction, the ontogenetic development and the behavior of the imagoes; indirectly, it can also affect populations because of its effects on plant phenology (Vargas et al. 1999). As in other studies, the late wet season would represent the period where the greatest number of Lepidoptera species complete their diapause stage and begin their feeding, reproduction and oviposition stage (Owen 1971; Wolda 1988).

On the contrary, the highest variation in temperature as well as the highest number of clear days occur during the months of November to April, leading to high evaporation rates. Under these conditions, most of the vegetation is dry, especially some herbaceous plants that, when flowering, provide food for imagoes. During the drought period, water reserves of tree and shrub species are also reduced, modifying their growth, nectar production, nutritional content, or even texture and turgor of leaves, which constitute food resources for most lepidoptera species. Therefore, although trees and shrubs are present in the habitat, many of them cannot be used by butterflies during this period due to their deciduous phenology, affecting in this way the community composition and populations of butterflies in these months. In addition, some compounds present in plants can vary in each season and not be palatable in certain months, so they are not nutritious for the immature stages of many species. Nevertheless, it is possible that the species are in diapause during the cold months (Scott 1979)

The results obtained in this work may have implications for the conservation of biodiversity, mainly butterflies, as they provide information to build a research line focused on detecting the effects of climatic variations on the composition of species and providing an approximation of the behavior of its diversity. In the particular case of diurnal Lepidoptera, the impact of climate change on populations can be measured by monitoring the temporary replacement of the composition of species in the community and the environmental gradients of temperature and relative humidity. This information can be used in the evaluation and use of environmental services by pollination of a large variety of plants, which is carried out by Lepidoptera (Grøtan et al. 2012, 2014; Checa et al. 2014; Forrest 2016).

Conclusions

For the first time in northeastern Mexico, the Papilionoidea group was systematically sampled during an annual sampling period. A total of 7,611 specimens belonging to six families, 20 subfamilies, 32 tribes, 148 genera, and 243 species of butterfly was collected from the study area. The highest abundance and richness of species, as well as alpha diversity was recorded in the lowest elevation site, and decreases significantly with increasing altitude, the tendency of altitudinal distribution of the Papilionoidea butterflies in Cerro Bufa El Diente is well defined to the environmental characteristics of the lower zone, agreeing with the Rapoport rule. The sites of low and intermediate altitude constitute an area of distribution of tropical species, while the site of the third floor forms an independent group of high mountain species, according to the conglomerate analysis carried out.

The greatest abundance and richness of species, as well as alpha diversity, was obtained during the late wet season, decreasing towards the beginning of the dry season. The geographical location of the study area plus the different plant compositions of the three sampled sites could be the main reason for the variation found here in the butterfly communities with altitude and season. In addition, relative humidity and temperature can influence the community of Rhopalocera in the study area; however, both abiotic factors directly affect plant composition, which is assumed to be the main factor in determining the composition and abundance of butterfly species.

This work is one of the first studies of diurnal butterflies in a specific area of northeastern Mexico, in which altitude and season are analyzed. The information presented here provides reference data that allow the comparison of the diversity and richness of Papilionoidea species at a regional and national scale. This information could be used as an initial step to analyze the possible use of butterflies as a biodiversity indicator group in Mexico.

Acknowledgments

We thank the active authorities of the municipality of San Carlos during the period of the collections, for having given us access permits to Cerro Bufa El Diente. The first author recognizes the great support of Mr. Luis Lauro Meléndez de la Serna, as well as Uriel Jeshua Sánchez Reyes during the sampling. To Mrs. María del Refugio de la Serna González for her kindness in hosting the first author during the development of the collections. For his recommendations, as well as for his support during the identification of the specimens to Jesus Garcia Jimenez.

References

  • Aluizio R (2015) Forams: Foraminifera and Community Ecology Analyses Package.
  • Álvarez GH, Ibarra VA, Escalante P (2016) Riqueza y distribución altitudinal de las mariposas de la Sierra Mazateca, Oaxaca (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Acta Zoológica Mexicana (n.s. ) 32(3): 323–347. https://doi.org/10.21829/azm.2016.323967
  • Andrade-Correa MG (2002) Biodiversidad de las mariposas (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) de Colombia. In: Costa C, Vanin SA, Lobo JM, Melic A (Eds) Proyecto de Red Iberoamericana de Biogeografía y Entomología Sistemática PriBES, II. Monografías Tercer Milenio (Vol. 2). SEA, Zaragoza, 153–172.
  • Andrade-Correa MG, Bañol ERH, Triviño P (2013) Técnicas y procesamiento para la recolección, preservación y montaje de mariposas diurnas en estudios de biodiversidad y conservación (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea y Papilionoidea). Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias 37(144): 311–325. https://doi.org/10.18257/raccefyn.12
  • Arteaga GLE (1991) Aspectos de la Distribución y Fenología de los Papilionoidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera) de la Cañada de los Chorros del Varal, Municipio de Los Reyes, Michoacán. (Tesis de Licenciatura) Escuela de Biología. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacán, México, 70 pp.
  • Balcázar ML (1993) Butterflies of Pedernales, Michoacán, Mexico, with notes on seasonality and faunistic affinities (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea). Tropical Lepidoptera 4: 93–105.
  • Beutelspacher CRB (1982) Mariposas diurnas de “El Chorreadero”‚ Chiapas (Insecta: Lepidoptera). Anales del Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Serie Zoología 53(1): 341–366.
  • Bizuet-Flores Y, Luis AM, Llorente JB (2001) Mariposas del Parque Nacional El Chico, Hidalgo, y sus relaciones biogeográficas con cinco zonas aledañas al Valle de México (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Revista Lepidopterológica (SHILAP) 29(114): 145–159.
  • Bonebrake TC, Ponisio LC, Boggs CL, Ehrlich PR (2010) More than just indicators: a review of tropical butterfly ecology and conservation. Biological Conservation 143(8): 1831–1841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.044
  • Brown JH (1984) On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. American Naturalist 124: 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1086/284267
  • Brown JH, Lomolino MV (1998) Biogeography (2nd edn.). Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts, 691 pp.
  • Calderón-Patrón JM, Moreno CE, Zuria I (2012) La diversidad beta: medio siglo de avances. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 83: 879–891. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.25510
  • Camero E, Anderson M, Calderon C (2007) Comunidad de mariposas diurnas (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) en un gradiente altitudinal del cañón del río Combeima-Tolima, Colombia. Acta Biológica Colombiana 12(2): 95–110.
  • Camero E (2003) Caracterización de la fauna de carábidos (Coleoptera: Carabidae) en un transecto altitudinal de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta-Colombia. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias 27(105): 491–516.
  • Carreño-Rocabado IG (2006) Evaluación de los Cafetales Bajo Sombra y Fragmentos de Bosque Adyacentes Como Hábitats Para Conservar la Diversidad de los Helechos en el Estado de Veracruz, México. MSc Thesis, Instituto de Ecología, A. C., Xalapa, 120 pp.
  • Carrero-S DA, Sánchez LR, Tobar DE (2013) Diversidad y distribución de mariposas diurnas en gradiente altitudinal en la región nororiental andina de Colombia. Boletín Científico, Museo de Historia Natural 17(1): 168–188.
  • Castro A, Espinosa CI (2016) Dinámica estacional de invertebrados en un matorral seco tropical a lo largo de un gradiente altitudinal. Ecosistemas 25(2): 35–45. https://doi.org/10.7818/ECOS.2016.25-2.05
  • Checa MF, Rodriguez J, Willmott KR, Liger B (2014) Microclimate variability significantly affects the composition, abundance and phenology of butterfly communities in a highly threatened neotropical dry forest. Florida Entomologist 97(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.097.0101
  • DeVries PJ, Walla TR (2001) Species diversity and community structure in neotropical fruit-feeding butterflies. Biological journal of the Linnean Society 74(1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1006/bijl.2001.0571
  • Díaz-Batres ME, Llorente JB, Vargas IF, Luis AM (2001) Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera) de la Reserva de la Biosfera “La Michilía” en Durango, México. In: Vargas M, Polanco OJ, Zúñiga G (Eds) Contribuciones Entomológicas. Homenaje a la Dra. Isabel Bassols. Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas-Instituto Politécnico Nacional, México, 35–56.
  • Dufrene M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67(3): 345–366. https://doi.org/10.2307/2963459
  • Espinosa D, Ocegueda S, Aguilar C, Flores O, Llorente-Bousquets J, Vázquez B (2008) El conocimiento biogeográfico de las especies y su regionalización natural. In: Capital Natural de México (Vol. 1). Conocimiento actual de la biodiversidad. CONABIO, México, 33–65.
  • Fagua G (1999) Variación de las mariposas y hormigas de un gradiente altitudinal de la cordillera Oriental (Colombia). Insectos de Colombia 2: 318–363.
  • Fick SE, Hijmans RJ (2017) Worldclim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37(12): 4302–4315. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086
  • Freitas AVL, Leal IR, Uehara‒Prado M, Iannuzzi L (2006) Insetos como indicadores de conservação da paisagem. In: Rocha CFD, Bergallo HG, Van Sluys M, Alves MAS (Eds) Biologia da Conservação. Rio de Janeiro, Editora da UERJ, 201‒225.
  • García-Jiménez J (2005) Las mariposas del municipio de Victoria y algunas áreas circunvecinas del centro del estado de Tamaulipas, México. In: Barrientos L, Correa A, Horta JV, García J (Eds) Biodiversidad Tamaulipeca (Vol. 10). Dirección General de Educación Superior Tecnológica, Instituto Tecnológico de Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas, 138–150.
  • García-Jiménez J, Ruíz E, Luna JF, Moreno A (2009) Aspectos de la diversidad de Lepidoptera (Papilionoidea y Hesperioidea) del Área Natural Protegida Altas Cumbres, Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. In: Ruíz-Cancino E, Coronado JM (Eds) Taller Internacional de Recursos Naturales. Memoria, 53–60.
  • Garwood K, Lehman R (2005) Butterflies of Northeastern Mexico. Nuevo León, San Luis Potosí and Tamaulipas. A Photographic Checklist (2nd edn.). Eye Scry Publishing, McAllen, Texas, 194 pp.
  • Glassberg J (2007) A swift guide to the butterflies of Mexico and Central America. Sunstreak books, Morristown, 266 pp.
  • Gómez-Anaya JA, Novelo-Gutiérrez R, Ramírez A, Arce-Pérez R (2014) Using empirical field data of aquatic insects to infer a cut-off slope value in asymptotic models to assess inventories completeness. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 85: 218–227. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.36978
  • Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2011) Estimating species richness. In: Magurran AE, McGill BJ (Eds) Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 39–54.
  • Gotelli NJ, Graves GR (1996) Null Models in Ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 368 pp.
  • Grøtan V, Lande R, Chacon IA, DeVries PJ (2014) Seasonal cycles of diversity and similarity in a Central American rainforest butterfly community. Ecography 37(5): 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00635
  • Grøtan V, Lande R, Engen S, Sæther BE, DeVries PJ (2012) Seasonal cycles of species diversity and similarity in a tropical butterfly community. Journal of Animal Ecology 81(3): 714–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01950.x
  • Heppner JB (1991) Faunal regions and the diversity of Lepidoptera. Tropical Lepidoptera 2 (suppl. 1): 1–85.
  • Janzen DH (1973) Sweep Samples of Tropical Foliage Insects: Effects of Seasons, Vegetation Types, Elevation, Time of Day, and Insularity. Ecology 54: 687–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/1935359
  • Kawahara AY, Breinholt JW (2014) Phylogenomics provides strong evidence for relationships of butterflies and moths. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0970
  • León EI de (2012) Diversidad de Lepidópteros Diurnos (Rhopalocera) del Cañón de La Peregrina, Victoria, Tamaulipas. Bachelor thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias. Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas, 133 pp.
  • Llorente JB (1984) Sinopsis sistemática y biogeográfica de los Dismorphiinae de México con especial referencia del género Enantia Huebner (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Folia Entomológica Mexicana 58: 1–207.
  • Llorente JB, Garcés AM, Luis AM (1986) Las mariposas de Jalapa, Teocelo, Veracruz (El Paisaje Teoceleño IV). Teocelo 4: 14–37.
  • Llorente JB, Luis AM, Vargas IF (2006) Apéndice general de Papilionoidea: Lista sistemática, distribución estatal y provincias biogeográficas. In: Morrone JJ, Llorente JB (Eds) Componentes Bióticos Principales de la Entomofauna Mexicana (vol. II). Las Prensas de Ciencias, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, México, 945–1009.
  • Llorente JB, Oñate LO, Luis AM, Vargas IF (1997) Papilionidae y Pieridae de México: distribución geográfica e ilustración. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/ Comisión Nacional para el Uso y Conocimiento de la Biodiversidad, México, 235 pp.
  • Llorente JB, Vargas IF, Luis AM, Trujano-Ortega M, Hernández-Mejía C, Warren AD (2014) Biodiversidad de Lepidoptera en México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, Supl. 85: 353–371. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.31830
  • Luis AM, Llorente JB (1990) Mariposas en el Valle de México: introducción e historia. 1. Distribución local y estacional de los Papilionoidea de la Cañada de los Dínamos, Magdalena Contreras, D. F., México. Folia Entomológica Mexicana 78: 95–198.
  • Luis AM, Llorente JB (1993) Mariposas. In: Luna MR, Llorente JB (Eds) Historia Natural del Parque Ecológico Estatal Omiltemi, Chilpancingo, Guerrero, México. Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM. México, 307–385.
  • Luis AM, Llorente JB, Vargas IF (2003) Nymphalidae de México I. Danainae, Apaturinae, Biblidinae y Heliconiinae: distribución geográfica e ilustración. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad/ Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, 249 pp.
  • Luis AM, Llorente JB, Vargas IF, Gutiérrez AL (2000) Síntesis preliminar del conocimiento de los Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera: Insecta) de México. In: Martín F, Morrone J, Melic A (Eds) Boletín Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 1. Monografías Tercer Milenio, 275–285.
  • Luis AM, Llorente JB, Vargas IF, Pozo C (2010) Nymphalidae de México III. Nymphalinae: distribución geográfica e ilustración. Las Prensas de Ciencias, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, México, 196 pp.
  • Luis AM, Vargas IF, Llorente JB (1991) Lepidopterofauna de Oaxaca. I. Distribución y fenología de los Papilionoidea de la sierra de Juárez. Publicaciones especiales del Museo de Zoología, UNAM 3: 1–121.
  • Luna MR, Llorente JB (2004) Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) de la sierra Nevada, México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana (n.s. ) 20: 79–102.
  • Luna MR, Llorente JB, Luis AM (2008) Papilionoidea de la sierra de Huautla, Morelos y Puebla, México (Insecta: Lepidoptera). Revista de Biología Tropical 56: 1677–1716. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v56i4.5754
  • Luna MR, Llorente JB, Luis AM, Vargas IF (2010) Composición faunística y fenología de las mariposas (Rhopalocera: Papilionoidea) de Cañón de Lobos, Yautepec, Morelos, México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 81: 315–342. https://doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2010.002.257
  • Luz M de la, Madero A (2011) Guía de mariposas de Nuevo León. Fondo Editorial de Nuevo León, UANL, México, 366 pp.
  • Magurran AE (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, 256 pp.
  • Margalef R (1972) Homage to Evelyn Hutchinson, or why there is an upper limit to diversity? Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 44: 211–235.
  • Marín MA, Álvarez CF, Giraldo CE, Pyrcz TW, Uribe SI, Vila R (2014) Mariposas en un bosque de niebla andino periurbano en el valle de Aburrá, Colombia. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 85: 200‒208. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.36605
  • Martínez M (1998) Inventario florístico de la Sierra de San Carlos, Tamps. Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. Instituto de Ecología Aplicada. Informe final SNIB-CONABIO, proyecto No. P024. México.
  • Monteagudo-Sabaté D, Luis AM, Vargas IF, Llorente JB (2001) Patrones altitudinales de la diversidad de mariposas en la sierra Madre del Sur (México) (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Revista Lepidopterológica (SHILAP) 29(115): 207–237.
  • Montero-Muñoz JL, Pozo C, Cepeda-González MF (2013) Recambio temporal de especies de lepidópteros nocturnos en función de la temperatura y la humedad en una zona de selva caducifolia en Yucatán, México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana (n.s.) 29(3): 614‒628.
  • Moreno CE (2001) Métodos para Medir la Biodiversidad. CYTED, ORCYT/UNESCO y SEA, Zaragoza, 84 pp.
  • Morón MA (1994) Fauna de Coleoptera Lamellicornia en las montañas del noreste de Hidalgo, México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana (nueva serie) 63: 7–59.
  • Morón MA, Terrón RA (1984) Distribución altitudinal y estacional de los insectos necrófilos en la Sierra Norte de Hidalgo, México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana 3: 1–47.
  • Muñoz A, Amarillo-Suárez A (2010) Variación altitudinal en diversidad de Arctiidae y Saturniidae (Lepidoptera) en un bosque de niebla Colombiano. Revista Colombiana de Entomología 36(2): 292–299.
  • Nieukerken EJ van, Kaila L, Kitching IJ, Kristensen NP, Lees DC, Minet J, Mitter C, Mutanen M, Regier JC, Simonsen TJ, Wahlberg N, Yen S-H, Zahiri R, Adamski D, Baixeras J, Bartsch D, Bengtsson BÅ, Brown JW, Bucheli SR, Davis DR, De Prins J, De Prins W, Epstein ME, Gentili-Poole P, Gielis C, Hättenschwiler P, Hausmann A, Holloway JD, Kallies A, Karsholt O, Kawahara AY, Koster SJC, Kozlov M, Lafontaine JD, Lamas G, Landry J-F, Lee S, Nuss M, Park K-T, Penz C, Rota J, Schintlmeister A, Schmidt BC, Sohn J-C, Solis MA, Tarmann GM, Warren AD, Weller S, Yakovlev RV, Zolotuhin VV, Zwick A (2011) Order Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758. In: Zhang Z-Q (Ed.) Animal Biodiversity: An outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa 3148: 212–221. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3148.1.41
  • Núñez-Bustos EO, Favre P, Bertolini MP, Turner JD, Sourakov A (2011) Mariposas diurnas (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea y Hesperioidea) de la Reserva Privada Osununú-Parque Provincial Teyú Cuaré y alrededores de San Ignacio, Provincia de Misiones, Argentina. Tropical Lepidoptera Research 21(1): 34–42.
  • Oksanen JO, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MH, Wagner H (2012) Vegan: idem Community ecology package.
  • Orozco S, Muriel SB, Palacio J (2009) Diversidad de lepidópteros diurnos en un área de bosque seco tropical del occidente antioqueño. Revista Actualidades Biológicas 31(90): 31‒41.
  • Ospina LA, García JF, Villa FA, Reinoso G (2010) Mariposas Pieridae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) de la cuenca del río Coello (Tolima), Colombia. Revista Actualidades Biológicas 32(93): 173–188.
  • Owen DF (1971) Tropical butterflies. Oxford University Press, London, 215 pp.
  • Palacio M, Constantino LM (2006) Diversidad de Lepidópteros Rhopalocera en un gradiente altitudinal en la Reserva Natural El Pangan, Nariño, Colombia. Boletín Científico, Museo de Historia Natural 10: 258–278.
  • Peña-Morales AL (2009) Diversidad de Rhopalocera (Insecta: Lepidoptera) en dos Fragmentos de Selva Baja Subcaducifolia de Tamaulipas, México. MSc Thesis, Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Victoria. Tamaulipas.
  • Pérez-García O (2008) Evaluación de la biodiversidad de mariposas diurnas presentes en sistemas agroforestales modernos con café en el Corredor Biológico Volcánica Central-Talamanca, Costa Rica. MSc Thesis, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, Turrialba, 80 pp.
  • Pozo MC, Galindo C (2000) Inventario y monitoreo de anfibios y mariposas en la Reserva de Calakmul, Campeche. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Unidad Chetumal. Informe final SNIB-CONABIO proyecto No. J112. México, 78 pp.
  • Prince-Chacón S, Vargas-Zapata MA, Salazar J, Martínez NJ (2011) Mariposas Papilionoidea y Hesperioidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera) en dos fragmentos de bosque seco tropical en Corrales de San Luis, Atlántico, Colombia. Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 48: 243‒252.
  • R Development Core Team. (2015) R: A language and environment forstatistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  • Raguso RA, Llórente JB (1991) The Butterflies (Lepidoptera) of the Tuxtlas Mts., Veracruz, Mexico, Revisited: Species-Richness and Habitat Disturbance. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 29: 105–133.
  • Rhoades DF (1983) Herbivore population dynamics and plant chemistry. In: Denno RF, McClure MS (Eds) Variable Plants and Herbivores in Natural and Managed Systems. Academic Press, New York, 155–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-209160-5.50012-X
  • Rydon AHB (1964) Notes on the use of butterfly traps in East Africa. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 18(1): 57–58.
  • Sánchez-Ramos G, Lobo J, Lara M, Reyes P (1993) Distribución altitudinal y estacional de la entomofauna necrófila en la Reserva de la Biosfera “El Cielo”‚ Tamaulipas, México. BIOTAM 5(1): 13–24.
  • Scott JA (1979) Hibernal diapause of North American Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 18(3): 171–200.
  • Scott JA (1986) The Butterflies of North America. A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 583 pp.
  • Shapiro AM (1974) Butterflies and skippers of New York State. Search Agriculture, Entomology 4: 1–60.
  • Shields O (1989) World numbers of butterflies. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 43: 178–183.
  • Tejeda-Cruz C, Mehltreter K, Sosa VJ (2008) Indicadores ecológicos multi-taxonómicos. In: Manson RH, Hernández-Ortiz V, Gallina S, Mehltreter K (Eds) Agroecosistemas Cafetaleros de Veracruz: Biodiversidad, Manejo y Conservación. Instituto Nacional de Ecología A. C., México, 123–134.
  • Tokeshi M (1990) Niche Apportionment or Random Assortment: Species Abundance Patterns Revisited. Journal of Animal Ecology 59(3): 1129–1146. https://doi.org/10.2307/5036
  • Treviño EJ, Muñoz CA, Cavazos C, Barajas L (2002) Evaluación del flujo hídrico superficial en la Sierra de San Carlos, Tamaulipas. Ciencia UANL 5(4): 525−530.
  • Valdez-Tamez V, Foroughbakhch-Pournavab R, Alanís-Flores G (2003) Distribución relictual del bosque mesófilo de montaña en el noreste de México. Ciencia UANL 6(3): 360–365.
  • Vargas IF, Llorente JB, Luis AM (1992) Listado lepidopterofaunístico de la Sierra de Atoyac de Álvarez en el estado de Guerrero: notas acerca de su distribución local y estacional (Rhopalocera: Papilionoidea). Folia Entomológica Mexicana 86: 41–178.
  • Vargas IF, Llorente JB, Luis AM (1994) Listado lepidopterofaunístico de la sierra de Atoyac de Álvarez en el estado de Guerrero: Notas acerca de su distribución local y estacional (Rhopalocera: Papilionoidea). Folia Entomológica Mexicana 86: 41–178.
  • Vargas IF, Llorente JB, Luis AM (1999) Distribución de los Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) de la Sierra de Manantlán (250–1,650 m) en los Estados de Jalisco y Colima. Publicaciones Especiales 11, Museo de Zoología, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, México, 53 pp.
  • Vargas IF, Llorente JB, Luis AM (1999) Distribución de los Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) de la sierra de Manantlán (250–1650 m snm) en los estados de Jalisco y Colima. Publicaciones Especiales del Museo de Zoología, UNAM 11: 1–153.
  • Vargas IF, Llorente JB, Luis AM, Pozo C (2008) Nymphalidae de México II. Libytheinae, Ithomiinae, Morphinae y Charaxinae: Distribución Geográfica e Ilustración. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/ Comisión Nacional para el Uso y Conocimiento de la Biodiversidad, México, 225 pp.
  • Villarreal H, Álvarez M, Córdoba S, Escobar F, Fagua G, Gast F, Mendoza H, Ospina M, Umaña AM (2006) Manual de Métodos Para el Desarrollo de Inventarios de Biodiversidad. Programa de Inventarios de Biodiversidad. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, 236 pp.
  • Warren AD (2000) Hesperioidea (Lepidoptera). In: Llorente JB, González ES, Papavero N (Eds) Biodiversidad, Taxonomía y Biogeografía de Artrópodos de México: Hacia una Síntesis de su Conocimiento (Vol. II). Las Prensas de Ciencias, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, México, 535–580.

Appendix 1

Taxonomic list of Papilionoidea by season and site in Cerro Bufa El Diente, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Abundance (upper row) and indicator values (lower row) are indicated for each species. N = Total abundance; 1 = Submontane scrub, 553 m asl; 2 = Oak forest, 783 m asl; 3 = Cloud forest, 1085 m asl; marked species (*) had a significant indicator value at p < 0.05.

Taxon Dry Season Rainy Season N
Early (Dec-Feb) Late (Mar-May) Early (Jun-Aug) Late (Sep-Nov)
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Papilionidae Latreille, 1802
Papilioninae Latreille, 1802
Troidini Talbot, 1939
Battus philenor philenor (Linnaeus, 1771) 0 0 0 9 11 6 2 2 3 5 2 3 43
0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 25.6 14.0 1.6 1.6 2.3 3.9 1.6 2.3 73.6
Battus polydamas polydamas (Linnaeus, 1758) 1 1 0 2 4 3 9 10 6 7 6 6 55
0.6 0.6 0.0 1.2 2.4 1.8 16.4 18.2 10.9 12.7 10.9 10.9 86.7
Leptocircini W. F. Kirby, 1896
Protographium epidaus epidaus (Doubleday, 1846) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 33.3
Protographium philolaus philolaus (Boisduval, 1836) 0 0 0 3 1 2 5 2 3 2 1 1 20
0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.7 3.3 16.7 6.7 10.0 3.3 1.7 1.7 50.0
Papilionini Latreille, 1802
Papilio polyxenes asterius (Stoll, 1782) 2 1 0 8 5 3 6 5 5 8 9 5 57
1.2 0.6 0.0 14.0 8.8 3.5 10.5 8.8 5.8 14.0 15.8 8.8 91.8
Pterourus alexiares garcia Rothschild & Jordan, 1906 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 4 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 12.1 51.5
Pterourus pilumnus Boisduval, 1836 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 6 4 6 3 3 36
0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 7.4 3.7 7.4 16.7 11.1 11.1 5.6 5.6 75.9
Pterourus palamedes leontis Rothschild & Jordan, 1906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 11.1 5.6 0.0 50.0
Pterourus garamas abderus Höpffer, 1856 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 6 0 0 7 18
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 14.8 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 38.9 88.9
Pterourus victorinus victorinus E. Doubleday, 1844 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 53.3
Heraclides cresphontes Cramer, 1777 1 1 0 0 0 0 19 14 11 25 12 6 89
0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 15.7 12.4 28.1 13.5 6.7 98.5
Heraclides astyalus pallas G. Gray, 1853 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 6
0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 16.7 5.6 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 33.3
Heraclides ornythion Boisduval, 1836 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 0 5 3 0 26
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 12.8 0.0 12.8 7.7 0.0 66.7
*Heraclides anchisiades idaeus Fabricius, 1793 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 15
0.0 0.0 0.0 53.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 2.2 0.0 91.1
Pieridae Swainson, 1820
Coliadinae Swainson, 1821
Kricogonia lyside (Godart, 1819) 4 2 0 14 8 5 28 24 20 19 21 14 159
1.7 0.8 0.0 8.8 5.0 3.1 17.6 15.1 12.6 11.9 13.2 8.8 98.7
Nathalis iole iole Boisduval, 1836 2 1 0 5 3 8 1 3 3 6 6 10 48
1.4 0.7 0.0 10.4 6.3 16.7 0.7 2.1 2.1 12.5 12.5 20.8 86.1
Eurema daira eugenia (Wallengren, 1860) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 33.3
Eurema boisduvaliana (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1865) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 58.3
Eurema mexicana mexicana (Boisduval, 1836) 1 1 0 8 6 2 4 5 2 10 5 2 46
0.7 0.7 0.0 17.4 13.0 2.9 5.8 7.2 1.4 21.7 10.9 1.4 83.3
Eurema salome jamapa (Reakirt, 1866) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 13.3 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Abaeis nicippe (Cramer, 1779) 0 0 0 6 8 3 13 5 7 4 5 1 52
0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 10.3 1.9 25.0 9.6 13.5 5.1 6.4 0.6 80.1
Pyrisitia proterpia (Fabricius, 1775) 4 4 0 6 7 3 9 6 4 8 3 0 54
7.4 4.9 0.0 11.1 13.0 3.7 16.7 11.1 4.9 14.8 3.7 0.0 91.4
Pyrisitia lisa centralis (Herrich-Schäffer, 1865) 5 4 0 12 10 3 12 8 9 12 10 6 91
5.5 2.9 0.0 13.2 11.0 2.2 13.2 8.8 9.9 13.2 11.0 4.4 95.2
Pyrisitia nise nelphe (R. Felder, 1869) 5 1 0 11 10 7 9 9 2 10 9 4 77
6.5 0.4 0.0 14.3 13.0 9.1 11.7 7.8 0.9 13.0 11.7 5.2 93.5
Pyrisitia dina westwoodii (Boisduval, 1836) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 22.2 0.0 66.7
Colias eurytheme Boisduval, 1832 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Zerene cesonia cesonia (Stoll, 1790) 1 2 0 2 3 5 20 10 11 31 15 7 107
0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.9 1.6 18.7 9.3 10.3 29.0 14.0 6.5 91.9
Anteos clorinde (Godart, 1824) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 5 5 15
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 4.4 2.2 33.3 22.2 66.7
*Anteos maerula (Fabricius, 1775) 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 3 8 5 4 38
3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 15.8 5.3 21.1 13.2 7.0 92.1
Phoebis sennae marcellina (Cramer, 1777) 4 3 1 19 16 9 15 6 10 19 14 7 123
2.2 2.4 0.3 15.4 13.0 7.3 12.2 4.9 8.1 15.4 11.4 5.7 98.4
Phoebis philea philea (Linnaeus, 1763) 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 7 11 4 3 38
0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 18.4 12.3 28.9 10.5 5.3 89.5
Phoebis argante argante (Fabricius, 1775) 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 3 1 4 3 1 17
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.9 0.0 3.9 5.9 2.0 15.7 5.9 2.0 41.2
Phoebis agarithe agarithe (Boisduval, 1836) 2 1 3 25 15 12 24 23 14 22 17 9 167
0.4 0.2 0.6 15.0 9.0 7.2 14.4 13.8 8.4 13.2 10.2 5.4 97.6
Pierinae Swainson, 1820
Pierini Swainson, 1820
Glutophrissa drusilla tenuis (Lamas, 1981) 0 0 0 6 7 5 9 5 5 7 5 7 56
0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 8.3 6.0 10.7 6.0 6.0 8.3 6.0 8.3 66.7
Pieriballia viardi viardi (Boisduval, 1836) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Pontia protodice (Boisduval & Le Conte, 1830) 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 16 20 3 3 4 61
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 26.2 32.8 1.6 1.6 2.2 89.1
Ascia monuste monuste (Linnaeus, 1764) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 2 5 7 3 28
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 11.9 2.4 11.9 16.7 3.6 60.7
Ganyra josephina josepha (Salvin & Godman, 1868) 0 0 0 3 1 1 8 6 7 12 8 3 49
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 0.7 16.3 8.2 9.5 24.5 16.3 2.0 80.3
Lycaenidae Leach, 1815
Theclinae Swainson, 1831
Eumaeini E. Doubleday, 1847
Eumaeus childrenae (G. Gray, 1832) 0 3 0 3 3 2 17 13 18 8 13 7 87
0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.8 19.5 14.9 20.7 9.2 14.9 5.4 88.9
Atlides halesus corcorani Clench, 1942 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Rekoa palegon (Cramer, 1780) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 33.3
*Rekoa marius (Lucas, 1857) 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 3 7 1 23
1.4 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 26.1 0.0 13.0 30.4 1.4 87.0
Arawacus jada (Hewitson, 1867) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 33.3
Ocaria ocrisia (Hewitson, 1868) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3
*Chlorostrymon simaethis sarita (Skinner, 1895) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 14 1 0 18
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 77.8 1.9 0.0 85.2
Cyanophrys herodotus (Fabricius, 1793) 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 3.0 3.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 3.0 0.0 33.3
Cyanophrys miserabilis (Clench, 1946) 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 53.3
Cyanophrys longula (Hewitson, 1868) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Callophrys xami texami Clench, 1981 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Allosmaitia strophius (Godart, 1824) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Electrostrymon hugon (Godart, 1824) 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 12
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 11.1 0.0 8.3 16.7 0.0 5.6 2.8 0.0 47.2
Electrostrymon guzanta (Schaus, 1902) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 26.7 6.7 0.0 46.7
Calycopis isobeon (Butler & H. Druce, 1872) 1 2 0 7 11 1 3 11 3 5 13 1 58
0.6 2.3 0.0 12.1 19.0 0.6 3.4 12.6 1.7 5.7 14.9 0.6 73.6
Strymon melinus melinus Hübner, 1818 2 0 0 5 5 3 22 15 5 8 5 1 71
0.9 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3 1.4 31.0 21.1 7.0 7.5 4.7 0.5 78.9
Strymon rufofusca (Hewitson, 1877) 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 7
9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.0 52.4
Strymon albata (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1865) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Strymon alea (Godman & Salvin, 1887) 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 64.1
Strymon bebrycia (Hewitson, 1868) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 0.0 55.6
Strymon yojoa (Reakirt, 1867) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Strymon bazochii bazochii (Godart, 1824) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 5 1 0 12
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 41.7 2.8 0.0 77.8
Strymon istapa istapa (Reakirt, 1867) 1 1 0 10 6 3 6 10 1 14 7 1 60
0.6 0.6 0.0 16.7 10.0 1.7 10.0 16.7 0.6 23.3 11.7 0.6 92.2
Strymon serapio (Godman & Salvin, 1887) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Ministrymon clytie (W. H. Edwards, 1877) 3 0 0 4 5 1 9 10 3 9 7 1 52
3.8 0.0 0.0 5.1 6.4 0.6 17.3 19.2 3.8 17.3 13.5 0.6 87.8
*Ministrymon azia (Hewitson, 1873) 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 9
0.0 0.0 0.0 55.6 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 70.4
Strephonota tephraeus (Geyer, 1837) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3
Panthiades bathildis (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1865) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Parrhasius moctezuma (Clench, 1971) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 11.1 0.0 33.3
Polyommatinae Swainson, 1827
Leptotes cassius cassidula (Boisduval, 1870) 6 2 0 18 12 6 15 7 2 13 12 5 98
6.1 1.4 0.0 18.4 12.2 6.1 15.3 7.1 0.7 13.3 12.2 3.4 96.3
Leptotes marina (Reakirt, 1868) 0 0 0 9 3 0 11 5 0 11 5 0 44
0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 4.5 0.0 25.0 7.6 0.0 16.7 7.6 0.0 75.0
Brephidium exilis exilis (Boisduval, 1852) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Zizula cyna (W. H. Edwards, 1881) 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 46.7
Cupido comyntas comyntas (Godart, 1824) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Celastrina ladon (Cramer, 1780) 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5
0.0 0.0 6.7 6.7 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 33.3
Echinargus isola (Reakirt, 1867) 0 0 0 15 10 7 16 9 4 16 10 5 92
0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 10.9 7.6 17.4 9.8 2.9 17.4 10.9 3.6 96.7
*Hemiargus ceraunus astenidas (Lucas, 1857) 2 0 0 15 7 1 9 4 1 10 9 3 61
2.2 0.0 0.0 24.6 11.5 0.5 9.8 4.4 0.5 16.4 14.8 3.3 88.0
Riodinidae Grote, 1895
Euselasiinae Kirby, 1871
Euselasia eubule (R. Felder, 1869) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Riodininae Grote, 1895
*Calephelis nemesis australis (W. H. Edwards, 1877) 0 0 0 3 1 1 16 9 3 11 9 2 55
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.6 29.1 16.4 3.6 20.0 16.4 1.2 89.7
Calephelis perditalis perditalis W. Barnes & McDunnough, 1918 0 0 0 16 12 5 14 7 2 15 12 3 86
0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 14.0 5.8 16.3 8.1 0.8 17.4 14.0 2.3 97.3
Calephelis rawsoni McAlpine, 1939 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Caria ino melicerta Schaus, 1890 0 0 0 10 6 1 10 6 1 9 5 1 49
0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 12.2 0.7 20.4 8.2 0.7 18.4 10.2 0.7 91.8
Lasaia sula peninsularis Clench, 1972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Emesis tenedia C. Felder & R. Felder, 1861 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 4 4 9 7 36
1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 13.0 11.1 7.4 25.0 19.4 80.6
Emesis emesia (Hewitson, 1867) 2 1 0 0 0 0 9 5 1 14 12 6 50
1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 6.7 0.7 28.0 24.0 12.0 91.3
Apodemia hypoglauca hypoglauca (Godman & Salvin, 1878) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 33.3
Apodemia walkeri Godman & Salvin, 1886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3
Nymphalidae Rafinesque, 1815
Libytheinae Boisduval, 1833
Libytheana carinenta larvata (Strecker, 1878) 0 0 0 27 13 5 56 33 18 37 16 8 213
0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 4.1 0.8 26.3 15.5 8.5 17.4 7.5 2.5 90.9
Danainae Boisduval, 1833
Danaini Boisduval, 1833
Danaus plexippus plexippus (Linnaeus, 1758) 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 9 23
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.3 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 8.7 26.1 55.1
Danaus gilippus thersippus (H. Bates, 1863) 5 2 0 12 7 3 14 10 5 12 10 6 86
5.8 1.6 0.0 14.0 8.1 2.3 16.3 11.6 3.9 14.0 11.6 7.0 96.1
Danaus eresimus montezuma Talbot, 1943 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 1 14 9 6 39
1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 1.7 0.9 35.9 23.1 15.4 87.2
Heliconiinae Swainson, 1822
Heliconiini Swainson, 1822
Agraulis vanillae incarnata (N. Riley, 1926) 5 2 1 14 10 6 13 9 2 12 7 3 84
4.0 1.6 0.4 16.7 11.9 7.1 15.5 10.7 1.6 14.3 8.3 2.4 94.4
Dione moneta poeyii Butler, 1873 0 0 0 4 1 0 2 1 0 5 4 1 18
0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 1.9 0.0 3.7 1.9 0.0 18.5 14.8 1.9 57.4
Dryadula phaetusa (Linnaeus, 1758) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Dryas iulia moderata (N. Riley, 1926) 0 0 0 13 11 3 12 9 4 12 7 1 72
0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 15.3 2.8 16.7 12.5 3.7 16.7 9.7 0.5 95.8
Eueides isabella eva (Fabricius, 1793) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Heliconius charithonia vazquezae W. Comstock & F. Brown, 1950 7 6 1 14 11 3 14 12 5 20 10 6 109
4.3 3.7 0.3 8.6 6.7 0.9 8.6 7.3 3.1 18.3 9.2 3.7 74.6
Argynnini Swainson, 1833
Euptoieta claudia (Cramer, 1775) 0 0 0 7 3 0 11 8 1 5 3 1 39
0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 2.6 0.0 28.2 20.5 0.9 8.5 2.6 0.9 76.1
Euptoieta hegesia meridiania Stichel, 1938 0 2 0 4 3 1 14 14 4 14 10 2 68
0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 20.6 20.6 3.9 20.6 14.7 1.0 86.3
Limenitidinae Behr, 1864
Limenitidini Behr, 1864
Limenitis arthemis astyanax (Fabricius, 1775) 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 1 0 5 2 16
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.1 0.0 20.8 2.1 0.0 20.8 4.2 54.2
Adelpha eulalia (E. Doubleday, 1848) 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0
Adelpha paraena massilia (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1867) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Adelpha fessonia fessonia (Hewitson, 1847) 1 0 0 12 9 6 11 9 3 13 12 3 79
0.4 0.0 0.0 15.2 11.4 7.6 13.9 11.4 1.3 16.5 15.2 2.5 95.4
Adelpha basiloides (H. Bates, 1865) 0 0 0 8 8 1 7 7 2 7 3 1 44
0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 18.2 0.8 10.6 15.9 1.5 10.6 2.3 0.8 78.8
Apaturinae Boisduval, 1840
Asterocampa celtis antonia (W. H. Edwards, 1878) 0 0 0 4 0 0 9 7 0 6 8 1 35
0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 17.1 13.3 0.0 11.4 15.2 1.0 61.9
Asterocampa leilia (W. H. Edwards, 1874) 0 0 0 7 1 0 7 0 0 7 2 0 24
0.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 1.4 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0 19.4 2.8 0.0 62.5
Asterocampa clyton louisa D. Stallings & Turner, 1947 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.4 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7
Asterocampa idyja argus (H. Bates, 1864) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 13.3 26.7 0.0 46.7
Doxocopa pavon theodora (Lucas, 1857) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Doxocopa laure laure (Drury, 1773) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 4 1 0 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 2.6 2.6 20.5 2.6 0.0 59.0
Biblidinae Boisduval, 1833
Biblidini Boisduval, 1833
Biblis hyperia aganisa Boisduval, 1836 1 1 0 13 13 6 12 10 2 9 9 1 77
0.4 0.4 0.0 16.9 16.9 7.8 15.6 13.0 1.7 11.7 11.7 0.4 96.5
Mestra amymone (Ménétriés, 1857) 10 3 0 23 16 7 30 21 8 29 16 9 172
5.8 1.2 0.0 13.4 9.3 4.1 17.4 12.2 3.1 16.9 9.3 5.2 97.9
Catonephelini Orfila, 1952
Eunica tatila tatila (Herrich-Schäffer, 1855) 5 3 0 13 13 8 21 16 7 27 20 9 142
1.2 0.7 0.0 9.2 9.2 5.6 14.8 11.3 3.3 19.0 14.1 6.3 94.6
Eunica monima (Stoll, 1782) 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 3 7 8 2 36
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 16.7 5.6 19.4 22.2 3.7 95.4
Myscelia ethusa ethusa (Doyère, 1840) 0 0 0 7 5 4 12 12 6 7 9 3 65
0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 5.1 4.1 18.5 18.5 9.2 7.2 9.2 3.1 82.1
Ageroniini E. Doubleday, 1847
Hamadryas februa ferentina (Godart, 1824) 4 2 0 12 8 3 8 7 5 12 13 7 81
3.3 0.8 0.0 14.8 9.9 2.5 9.9 8.6 4.1 14.8 16.0 8.6 93.4
Hamadryas glauconome glauconome (H. Bates, 1864) 0 0 0 9 5 2 7 4 1 7 6 3 44
0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 11.4 3.0 15.9 6.1 0.8 15.9 9.1 4.5 87.1
Hamadryas guatemalena marmarice (Fruhstorfer, 1916) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Epiphelini Jenkins, 1987
Epiphile adrasta adrasta Hewitson, 1861 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 7 3 1 8 6 32
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 1.0 14.6 6.3 1.0 25.0 18.8 72.9
Eubagini Burmeister, 1878
Dynamine dyonis Geyer, 1837 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 4.2 0.0 12.5 4.2 0.0 45.8
Cyrestinae Guenée, 1865
Cyrestini Guenée, 1865
Marpesia chiron (Fabricius, 1775) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
*Marpesia petreus (Cramer, 1776) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 86.7
Nymphalinae Rafinesque, 1815
Coeini Scudder, 1893
Historis acheronta acheronta (Fabricius, 1775) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3
Nymphalini Rafinesque, 1815
*Smyrna blomfildia datis Fruhstorfer, 1908 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 1 0 0 9 1 18
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 1.9 5.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 50.0 1.9 72.2
Vanessa virginiensis (Drury, 1773) 0 0 0 2 1 1 6 5 2 3 1 0 21
0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 1.6 1.6 19.0 15.9 6.3 4.8 1.6 0.0 54.0
Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus, 1758) 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 4 0 6 3 0 19
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 3.5 14.0 0.0 21.1 10.5 0.0 63.2
Vanessa atalanta rubria (Fruhstorfer, 1909) 0 0 0 14 10 8 12 16 10 22 10 8 110
0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 9.1 7.3 10.9 14.5 9.1 20.0 9.1 7.3 100
Nymphalis antiopa antiopa (Linnaeus, 1758) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3
Polygonia interrogationis (Fabricius, 1798) 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 4 0 0 2 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 6.1 12.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 33.3
Victorinini Scudder, 1893
Anartia jatrophae luteipicta (Fruhstorfer, 1907) 3 2 0 5 2 2 14 13 6 22 11 5 85
1.2 0.8 0.0 2.0 0.8 0.8 16.5 15.3 7.1 25.9 12.9 3.9 87.1
*Anartia fatima fatima (Fabricius, 1793) 0 0 0 21 3 0 8 7 0 18 1 0 58
0.0 0.0 0.0 36.2 1.7 0.0 9.2 8.0 0.0 31.0 0.6 0.0 86.8
Siproeta stelenes biplagiata (Fruhstorfer, 1907) 0 0 0 3 3 1 8 6 3 6 5 0 35
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.9 1.0 15.2 11.4 5.7 11.4 9.5 0.0 60.0
Junoniini Reuter, 1896
Junonia coenia coenia Hübner, 1822 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 4.2 0.0 50.0
Junonia evarete (Cramer, 1779) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3
Melitaeini Newman, 1870
Chlosyne janais janais (Drury, 1782) 5 0 0 13 9 4 16 6 1 11 12 2 79
4.2 0.0 0.0 16.5 11.4 3.4 20.3 7.6 0.4 13.9 15.2 1.7 94.5
Chlosyne definita definita (E. Aaron, 1885) 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 6
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 50.0
Chlosyne melitaeoides (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1867) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 9 0 0 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 2.6 0.0 46.2 0.0 0.0 56.4
Chlosyne endeis pardelina Scott, 1986 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 41.7 4.2 0.0 54.2
Chlosyne rosita browni Bauer, 1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 8 1 14 8 5 48
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 11.1 0.7 19.4 11.1 6.9 66.0
*Chlosyne theona bollii (W. H. Edwards, 1877) 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.7 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 90.9
Chlosyne lacinia adjutrix Scudder, 1875 2 0 0 7 4 1 11 8 0 19 7 0 59
1.1 0.0 0.0 7.9 4.5 0.6 12.4 9.0 0.0 32.2 7.9 0.0 75.7
*Microtia elva elva H. Bates, 1864 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 35 2 0 52
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.6 0.0 67.3 1.3 0.0 96.2
Texola elada ulrica (W. H. Edwards, 1877) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 33.3
Anthanassa texana texana (W. H. Edwards, 1863) 2 3 0 18 14 6 10 15 7 15 11 1 102
0.7 1.0 0.0 17.6 13.7 5.9 9.8 14.7 4.6 14.7 10.8 0.3 93.8
Anthanassa ardys (Hewitson, 1864) 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 53.3
Anthanassa ptolyca (H. Bates, 1864) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Anthanassa argentea (Godman & Salvin, 1882) 1 1 0 10 13 3 10 9 2 12 14 1 76
0.4 0.4 0.0 13.2 17.1 2.6 13.2 11.8 0.9 15.8 18.4 0.4 94.3
Anthanassa tulcis (H. Bates, 1864) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 2 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 45.8
Phyciodes graphica (R. Felder, 1869) 3 0 0 8 5 0 8 7 0 8 7 0 46
2.2 0.0 0.0 17.4 10.9 0.0 17.4 10.1 0.0 17.4 10.1 0.0 85.5
Phyciodes mylitta mexicana A. Hall, 1928 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 50.0
Phyciodes phaon phaon (W. H. Edwards, 1864) 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 53.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 60.0
Phyciodes tharos tharos (Drury, 1773) 6 2 0 8 14 4 7 14 1 14 10 6 86
7.0 0.8 0.0 9.3 16.3 4.7 8.1 16.3 0.4 16.3 11.6 7.0 97.7
Charaxinae Guenée, 1865
Anaeini Reuter, 1896
Anaea aidea (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) 16 6 4 40 28 17 79 58 28 77 50 39 442
3.6 0.9 0.6 9.0 6.3 3.8 17.9 13.1 6.3 17.4 11.3 8.8 99.2
Anaea andria Scudder, 1875 0 0 0 9 5 5 10 8 3 17 10 6 73
0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 4.6 4.6 13.7 11.0 1.4 23.3 13.7 8.2 92.7
Fountainea glycerium glycerium (E. Doubleday, 1849) 0 0 0 6 5 2 5 3 0 0 2 0 23
0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 21.7 2.9 21.7 8.7 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 75.4
Memphis pithyusa pithyusa (R. Felder, 1869) 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 4 3 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 3.0 0.0 24.2 9.1 0.0 45.5
Satyrinae Boisduval, 1833
Satyrini Boisduval, 1833
Cyllopsis sp. R. Felder, 1869 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 3 0 0 3 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 7.7 15.4 0.0 0.0 7.7 51.3
Cyllopsis dospassosi L. Miller, 1974 1 1 0 9 3 0 11 8 1 8 5 1 48
0.7 0.7 0.0 18.8 4.2 0.0 22.9 16.7 0.7 16.7 6.9 0.7 88.9
Cyllopsis gemma freemani (D. Stallings & Turner, 1947) 6 2 1 23 15 7 19 14 7 20 14 7 135
4.4 1.0 0.2 17.0 11.1 5.2 14.1 10.4 5.2 14.8 10.4 3.5 97.3
Megisto rubricata rubricata (W. H. Edwards, 1871) 0 0 0 4 1 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 2.6 0.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 59.0
Hermeuptychia hermes (Fabricius, 1775) 0 0 0 14 7 2 12 6 1 12 6 1 61
0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 7.7 1.1 19.7 6.6 0.5 19.7 6.6 0.5 85.2
Hesperiidae Latreille, 1809
Eudaminae Mabille, 1877
Phocides polybius lilea (Reakirt, 1867) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Phocides urania urania (Westwood, 1852) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 33.3
Epargyreus socus orizaba Scudder, 1872 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 4.2 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Polygonus leo arizonensis (Skinner, 1911) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Chioides albofasciatus (Hewitson, 1867) 0 2 0 8 12 3 7 3 0 10 6 1 52
0.0 1.3 0.0 15.4 23.1 3.8 9.0 3.8 0.0 19.2 11.5 0.6 87.8
*Chioides zilpa (Butler, 1872) 0 0 0 11 7 2 6 0 0 9 6 1 42
0.0 0.0 0.0 26.2 16.7 1.6 9.5 0.0 0.0 21.4 14.3 0.8 90.5
Aguna asander asander (Hewitson, 1867) 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 53.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0
Aguna metophis (Latreille, 1824) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 33.3
Typhedanus undulatus (Hewitson, 1867) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 54.2
Codatractus bryaxis (Hewitson, 1867) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Urbanus proteus proteus (Linnaeus, 1758) 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Urbanus dorantes dorantes (Stoll, 1790) 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 33.3
*Urbanus procne (Plötz, 1881) 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 12
0.0 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 2.8 0.0 16.7 2.8 0.0 69.4
Urbanus teleus (Hübner, 1821) 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 50.0
Urbanus doryssus (Swainson, 1831) 0 0 0 5 1 0 4 1 1 5 2 0 19
0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 1.8 0.0 7.0 1.8 1.8 26.3 7.0 0.0 63.2
Astraptes fulgerator azul (Reakirt, 1867) 1 0 0 7 3 2 7 2 0 7 2 0 31
1.1 0.0 0.0 15.1 6.5 2.2 15.1 2.2 0.0 15.1 2.2 0.0 59.1
Astraptes alector hopfferi (Plötz, 1881) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Autochton cellus (Boisduval & Le Conte, 1837) 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 5 0 2 0 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 10.3 0.0 2.6 25.6 0.0 5.1 0.0 46.2
Autochton cincta (Plötz, 1882) 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 5 4 0 3 2 21
0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 15.9 6.3 0.0 9.5 3.2 55.6
Achalarus toxeus (Plötz, 1882) 0 0 0 8 3 0 6 1 0 6 1 0 25
0.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 8.0 0.0 16.0 1.3 0.0 16.0 1.3 0.0 74.7
Thorybes pylades albosuffusa H. Freeman, 1943 0 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 18.2 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 57.6
Cabares potrillo potrillo (Lucas, 1857) 0 1 0 7 9 1 0 4 0 9 6 1 38
0.0 0.9 0.0 18.4 23.7 0.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 15.8 10.5 0.9 74.6
Spathilepia clonius (Cramer, 1775) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 50.0
Cogia hippalus hiska Evans, 1953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3
Pyrginae Burmeister, 1878
Carcharodini Verity, 1940
Arteurotia tractipennis tractipennis Butler & H. Druce, 1872 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 33.3
Polyctor enops (Godman & Salvin, 1894) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 55.6
Noctuana lactifera bipuncta (Plötz, 1884) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 22.2 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 55.6
Bolla brennus brennus (Godman & Salvin, 1896) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Bolla clytius (Godman & Salvin, 1897) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3
Staphylus mazans (Reakirt, 1867) 0 1 0 9 6 2 4 3 1 6 3 0 35
0.0 1.0 0.0 25.7 17.1 3.8 7.6 5.7 1.0 11.4 2.9 0.0 76.2
Staphylus azteca (Scudder, 1872) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.3
Pholisora catullus (Fabricius, 1793) 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 6
0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 33.3
Erynnini Brues & F. Carpenter, 1932
Gorgythion begga pyralina (Möschler, 1877) 2 4 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
5.6 11.1 2.8 5.6 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Grais stigmaticus stigmaticus (Mabille, 1883) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 57.6
Timochares ruptifasciata (Plötz, 1884) 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 3.0 0.0 24.2 3.0 0.0 57.6
Chiomara georgina georgina (Reakirt, 1868) 5 4 1 22 14 5 12 13 5 19 10 3 113
2.9 2.4 0.3 19.5 12.4 2.9 10.6 11.5 2.9 16.8 8.8 1.8 92.9
Gesta invisus (Butler & H. Druce, 1872) 0 0 0 9 4 3 6 4 0 9 11 3 49
0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 5.4 4.1 4.1 2.7 0.0 18.4 22.4 4.1 73.5
Erynnis tristis tatius (W. H. Edwards, 1883) 0 1 0 7 7 2 8 7 2 12 11 5 62
0.0 0.5 0.0 7.5 7.5 2.2 8.6 7.5 2.2 19.4 17.7 5.4 78.5
*Erynnis funeralis (Scudder & Burgess, 1870) 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 12
2.8 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 77.8
Achlyodidini Burmeister, 1878
*Achlyodes pallida (R. Felder, 1869) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 54.5 0.0 69.7
Eantis tamenund (W. H. Edwards, 1871) 6 4 0 16 11 5 14 10 3 19 14 6 108
5.6 2.5 0.0 14.8 10.2 4.6 13.0 9.3 1.9 17.6 13.0 5.6 97.8
Zera hyacinthinius hyacinthinus (Mabille, 1877) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 46.7
Pyrgini Burmeister, 1878
Carrhenes canescens canescens (R. Felder, 1869) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 33.3
Systasea pulverulenta (R. Felder, 1869) 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 16.7 0.0 4.2 4.2 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 50.0
Celotes nessus (W. H. Edwards, 1877) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 6.7 0.0 46.7
Pyrgus communis communis (Grote, 1872) 0 0 0 2 1 1 14 12 7 3 4 1 45
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.7 0.7 31.1 26.7 15.6 2.2 3.0 0.7 82.2
Pyrgus albescens Plötz, 1884 2 4 0 13 13 7 12 10 4 21 10 7 103
0.6 2.6 0.0 12.6 12.6 6.8 11.7 9.7 2.6 20.4 9.7 6.8 96.1
Pyrgus oileus (Linnaeus, 1767) 6 7 1 23 18 9 22 24 12 26 17 11 176
2.3 4.0 0.2 13.1 10.2 5.1 12.5 13.6 6.8 14.8 9.7 6.3 98.5
Pyrgus philetas W. H. Edwards, 1881 0 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 12
0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 8.3 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 2.8 52.8
Heliopyrgus domicella domicella (Erichson, 1849) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Heliopyrgus sublinea (Schaus, 1902) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 22.2 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 44.4
Heliopetes laviana laviana (Hewitson, 1868) 5 2 0 11 10 4 10 12 1 23 17 6 101
3.3 0.7 0.0 10.9 9.9 4.0 9.9 11.9 0.3 22.8 16.8 5.9 96.4
Heliopetes macaira macaira (Reakirt, 1867) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Hesperiinae Latreille, 1809
Megathymini J. H. Comstock & A. Comstock, 1895
Agathymus remingtoni (D. Stallings & Turner, 1958) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Thymelicini Tutt, 1905
Ancyloxypha arene (W. H. Edwards, 1871) 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 12.5 50.0
*Oarisma edwardsii (W. Barnes, 1897) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 2 12
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 83.3
Copaeodes aurantiaca (Hewitson, 1868) 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 55.6
Copaeodes minima (W. H. Edwards, 1870) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3
Calpodini A. Clark, 1948
Panoquina lucas (Fabricius, 1793) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Anthoptini A. Warren, 2009
Synapte pecta Evans, 1955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 33.3
Moncini A. Warren, 2008
Mnasicles geta Godman, 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Remella rita (Evans, 1955) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 2 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 25.0 0.0 8.3 16.7 54.2
Amblyscirtes aenus erna H. Freeman, 1943 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 33.3
*Amblyscirtes celia Skinner, 1895 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 3.0 54.5 0.0 6.1 0.0 69.7
Amblyscirtes fimbriata fimbriata (Plötz, 1882) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Amblyscirtes anubis (Godman, 1900) 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 13.3 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.7
Repens florus (Godman, 1900) 0 0 0 5 5 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 18
0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 18.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 3.7 0.0 51.9
Monca crispinus (Plötz, 1882) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 33.3
Nastra julia (H. Freeman, 1945) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Cymaenes trebius (Mabille, 1891) 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 53.3
Lerodea eufala eufala (W. H. Edwards, 1869) 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.6
Lerodea arabus (W. H. Edwards, 1882) 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Lerema accius (J. E. Smith, 1797) 3 1 0 11 7 2 5 0 0 1 2 0 32
3.1 1.0 0.0 22.9 14.6 2.1 5.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.0 52.1
Lerema liris Evans, 1955 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 3 2 3 2 26
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 20.5 7.7 2.6 3.8 2.6 47.4
Vettius fantasos (Cramer, 1780) 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Hesperiini Latreille, 1809
Hylephila phyleus phyleus (Drury, 1773) 0 0 0 5 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 12
0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 5.6 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.2
Polites vibex praeceps (Scudder, 1872) 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
Wallengrenia otho otho (J. E. Smith, 1797) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3
Atalopedes campestris huron (W. H. Edwards, 1863) 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 0 2 6 18
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 3.7 22.2 44.4
Poanes zabulon (Boisduval & Le Conte, 1837) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 33.3
Poanes melane vitellina (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3
Quasimellana eulogius (Plötz, 1882) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3
*Quinta cannae (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 86.7
Nyctelius nyctelius nyctelius (Latreille, 1824) 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 5 1 0 0 2 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 7.7 12.8 2.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 33.3